Sir, - It is an interesting comment on how debates on the media take place that a critique of the present libel laws should attract an accusation of being one-sided and self-serving.
Peter Murray (March 19th) states, at length, his opinion on the many sins committed by newspapers (he does not concern himself with broadcast journalism, which is as affected by the libel laws as print). Does it not occur to him that the developments he says are so detrimental to Ireland's newspaper culture have taken place within an environment of harsh libel laws? Draconian libel laws have offered no protection and do not make good journalism, simply timid journalism.
Neither the Law Reform Commission, which has recommended major reforms of the law, nor I have suggested that libel laws be scrapped - just that they reflect the Ireland of 2001, rather than the England of some centuries ago.
Mr Murray has highlighted one of the many flaws in the present libel regime - the lack of legal aid for those wishing to protect their good name, making the libel laws which he defends so eloquently accessible for the wealthy only. This point was also contained in my article. What he has not commented on, however, is the fact that the present laws are actually a stumbling block to making newspapers more accountable. While defamation remains unreformed, there is little chance of establishing a working and effective voluntary regulatory body, such as a press council or an ombudsman, because no newspaper can offer an apology without admitting liability. The same libel laws that make the rich richer also ensure than others cannot even get an apology.
There is surely much wrong with the media, and not just newspapers, but let me suggest that a little more imagination might be necessary in order to create a climate where good journalism can flourish. High libel awards and an automatic assumption of guilt have had little or no effect on standards. On the contrary, the increasing cost of defamation - the legal costs, payments and awards - is one of the factors that has made running newspapers so expensive, and possibly one of the reasons for the success of Mr Murray's "interfering proprietors".
It is hard to sustain the simplistic view that "the ordinary folk who serve on juries" make big awards as some sort of attempt to make the media accountable. It is, of course, "ordinary folk" who buy newspapers, including those Mr Murray says are sold by sensationalism and controversy.
There is a need for a debate on the media. Such a debate should examine not only libel, but also privacy, accountability, ownership, regulation and even ethics. Even after such a debate it is unlikely that we will know once and for all how to maintain a free press that is entirely without fault. Mr Murray says that unless someone can devise a workable formula for distinguishing between "entertainment and serious journalism, The Irish Times will just have to soldier on under the legal regime appropriate to the lowest common denominator in its business". Allow me to offer a thought from the 19th-century French historian, Alexis de Tocqueville, who said of the press: "In order to enjoy the inestimable benefits that the liberty of the press ensures, it is necessary to submit to the inevitable evils it creates." - Yours, etc.,
Michael Foley, Lecturer in Journalism, School of Media, Dublin Institute of Technology, Aungier Street, Dublin 2.